Will you be adding the Centurion or the Caernarvon to the mod? The Americans have the Super Pershing the Germans have the Tiger 2 and the Panzer Elite got the Jagdtiger I just think that the British armor is a bit lacking in compared to its counterparts and that a tank like the Caernarvon will compare quite nicely to other tanks like the Tiger 2

Avenger2002 wrote:Will you be adding the Centurion or the Caernarvon to the mod? The Americans have the Super Pershing the Germans have the Tiger 2 and the Panzer Elite got the Jagdtiger I just think that the British armor is a bit lacking in compared to its counterparts and that a tank like the Caernarvon will compare quite nicely to other tanks like the Tiger 2

Not every faction has to have a heavy tank, with brits you just have to play a different strategy, TDs + 17 pounders. Trust me, 17 pounders are as scary as a Tiger 2, no one dares to send tanks first with 17's on the field. The brits and americans didn't had any heavy tanks (pershing doesnt count, it was weak compared to german heavy armor and was used briefly and in few numbers, SP is not even sure it ever hit a german tank) and still they had to deal with german beasts and somehow destroyed them and won the war. I would be in favor of removing even the SP and kill those german beasts the way allies really did it (have no idea how but they did it ), probably AT's, TD's, Arty, Airstrikes, Infantry, perhings, Fury (the movie) style kills with losing 2 shermans but the third with good crew managing to hit the sweet spots disabling the turret, killing the engine etc.

Jagdpanther wrote:I would be in favor of removing even the SP and kill those german beasts the way allies really did it (have no idea how but they did it ), probably AT's, TD's, Arty, Airstrikes, Infantry, perhings, Fury (the movie) style kills with losing 2 shermans but the third with good crew managing to hit the sweet spots disabling the turret, killing the engine etc.

Most of german tanks were paper tanks (Panzer I ----> Panzer IV = max effective armour 80mm, common sherman's effective armour = ~90mm), that shermans could deal with easily. Heavy german tanks were killed by mechanical failures and lack of petrol with some help of armour piercing air to ground rockets.

Sure, they were. Tigers were pretty bad tanks in compare to other countries. In time when USSR produced slopped, fast and reliable T-34, Allies had their lesson and invested much in Sherman design, which was ridiculously cheap, universal and pretty reliable, Germans driven by Hitler's megalomania were designing bigger, slower and less useful tanks. Even if they tried to steal enemie's designs (---> Panther <---), in terms of armored force itself they were doing poorly.

Unbeatable and unstoppable german tanks (during late war especially) is just a huge laughable myth. Everybody who says otherwise should read any professional history of military book.

Well you can read the Battle of Kursk (demolishing the myth) by Jean Lopez and you will read how amazingly the Tigers performed there and above all, the few Elefants deployed. They got a ratio like 14:1. But yeah. Elefants were badly designed, not even an MG to deal with infantry so all got mined. And even if the Tigers performed very well until 1943 as you say they were a ruin: consumption, maintenance, price... And the King Tiger was even worse... Should have focused earlier on Panthers.

Anyway, thanks a lot for this new version. Going to try it immediatly!

Kasbah wrote:Well you can read the Battle of Kursk (demolishing the myth) by Jean Lopez and you will read how amazingly the Tigers performed there and above all, the few Elefants deployed. They got a ratio like 14:1. But yeah. Elefants were badly designed, not even an MG to deal with infantry so all got mined. And even if the Tigers performed very well until 1943 as you say they were a ruin: consumption, maintenance, price... And the King Tiger was even worse... Should have focused earlier on Panthers

I don't mean they were bad tanks themselves, of course that they scored many kills with guns able to kill T-34 from hundreds meters. What I mean that they were bad in long-term thinking. With their resources and ideas, Germans could design much better, lighter and cheaper tanks, that could have been deployed in bigger numbers.

As you probably know Tiger tank cost around 100.000 $ and 300.000 man hours, while sherman was around 40.000 $ and 48.000 man hours. But you have to remember that building a sherman was simple work - "just weld it here", also enhanced by mechanization, while german tanks were build by skilled workers, according to complex design blueprints and even though, they suffered malfunctions.

Over-complexity and lack of economical and design effectiveness killed german tanks.

Last edited by JimQwilleran on 04 Apr 2016, 20:25, edited 1 time in total.

I'd say that what killed german tanks on top of overengineering was the whole part about losing the war. They were under a situation where they couldn't afford to control the tanks within safe parameters, they had to try and get all they could out of the machine to try and keep the allied pushes at bay.

Lo and behold, when they pushed the machinery it broke down, and since it was an overengineered mess the broken down tanks were simply lost.

(Isn't this getting off topic now, though?)

Last edited by Armacalic on 04 Apr 2016, 20:22, edited 1 time in total.

About the crews yes, it's relative, but the rest is absolutely right. Not to mention the maintenance also... Tons of parts (expensive), their weight mad it very difficult to crane, bridges couldn't hold, special trains were needed to transport them... Wherever they were deployed they did impressive scores and they reestablished many situations but they were never enough. Fortunately, or else we would be all speaking German nowadays in Western Europe! And let's stop here the OT

Panzer-Lehr-Division wrote:Well i have wierd Problem since this patch i can not ambush any pe tankhunter in this patch .. the ambush logo not appear but it works on any other faction tank hunters...

U reported this bug also on 493 before, here!viewtopic.php?f=5&t=900It's not patch related.. u told me before that u actually got a new PC and only since then u started with complaining regarding this ambushing issues together with few other visual bugs of which u have also told me about them all... I would say something must be wrong only with ur own system perhaps.

Sure, they were. Tigers were pretty bad tanks in compare to other countries. In time when USSR produced slopped, fast and reliable T-34, Allies had their lesson and invested much in Sherman design, which was ridiculously cheap, universal and pretty reliable, Germans driven by Hitler's megalomania were designing bigger, slower and less useful tanks. Even if they tried to steal enemie's designs (---> Panther <---), in terms of armored force itself they were doing poorly.

Unbeatable and unstoppable german tanks (during late war especially) is just a huge laughable myth. Everybody who says otherwise should read any professional history of military book.

1) "steal enemie's designs --> Panther <---"... thank you you just now disqualified yourself about any qualified talk about WWII "it has Sloped armor must be copy of soviets"... Sloped armour was used much longer... Maximilian armour had parts on it to keep arrows from hitting perfectly... fortresses had angled walls... ships had angled armour... oh and... Tanks already had sloped armour before T-34s... ever seen a Char b1? Oh yeah... german halftracks and armoured cars also applied sloped armour far before meeting the T-34... Daimler Benz btw actually proposed a tank that looked like copy of a T-34... was rejected...btw why the Panther IS NOT a T-34 copy1) 75mm High velocity gun mainly for AT duty, while T-34 has more of a multi purpose gun2) Gasoline instead of diesel3) turret basket and 3 man turret (T-34 didnt have one until after the Panthers appearance iirc)4) far broader layout to give the crew space to work with...5) no commander doubling as a loader...6) extremely soft Torsion bar suspension giving the crew a smooth ride (actually afaik on Today MBT level) VS hard Christie suspension that made traveling off road rather... unpleasend in the T-347) transmission that allowed neutral steer as well as an easy steering using a steering wheel VS T-34s clutch break Transmission where they had to use a hammer to get into the highest gear until a new gearbox was brought in when they rolled out T-34-85s (but only later ones afaik)

2) on a cost per ton ratio the Tiger was nearly as expensive as a Panzer IV, Panther was actually only a tad more expensive then Panzer IVs... (iirc 104k for Panzer IV, 114 or so for Panzer V)3) "slower"... Panther made, depending of Version, between 45 and 55 Km/h... Tigers 40... like Panzer IVs... and the Tiger and the Panther were far better cross coutnry...the Sherman also wasnt cheap by any means... dito T-34... the respective nations just were able to built so many of them that they APPEAR to be cheap... 4) "reliable" T-34s? BAHAHAHAHA T-34s werent reliable in any way... you know at the beginning of Barbarossa T-34s had ahuge loss not due to combat but due to breakdowns... just like the Big cats that are often frowned becuase of that... just there so many of em... SHermans advantage was ease of repair

btw as a small note if somebody wants to compare german penetration values to e.g. US ones and then is astonished about "how well the US do compared to the german high velocity guns" they should keep in mind that german used an extremely strict criteria:shells 50mm and under: 10 consecutive penetrations with the HE Filler intact against a plate angled at 30° to get the penetration assigned75mm and bigger: 5 consecutive penetrations...if one of those shells failed they took another batch of shells for testing (and no they didnt have any special shells for testing, they took a normal production batch and took the best shells from that)while US had a 50% penetration in 50% of cases criteria... far less strictif you wanna know morehttps://forum.warthunder.com/index.php? ... are-wrong/

At first, I actually didn't want to comment the following.. since I am aware that this could lead to some very deep historical discussions... While there is no need really to do such, not to mention that it's not the right place to do so either. But now I will probably just type a short post about it!

JimQwilleran wrote:Unbeatable and unstoppable german tanks (during late war especially) is just a huge laughable myth.

SchlagtSieTot wrote:Tigers are shrouded in myth and exaggeration.

Facts;On its first appearance on 1942, the Tiger was quite clearly a nightmare.. this thing was widely feared specifically by the Soviets. While very quickly gaining much more and more reputation due to the amazingly high number of kills they often succeeded to score! Yet, I understand that technically speaking.. the Tigers might have not been the best for sure; but as I said. They simply did so much while having a huge impact on the battlefield.. because they had serviced in combat early on the begining of the war when there was perhaps absolutely nothing that could stand them at all or even reliably beat them up anyhow. Again specifically through the first deployment months of this machine...

Here is an English documentary that was made after Micheal Wittmann as a tribute;https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=epuM5T2ziQUJump to 4:10, now let me quote to u guys some of what they said about the Tiger tank:-"The Tigers were feared by the Soviets, they were used as weapons to smash gaps in enemy positions for the Grenadiers to move up in support.. in countless attacks, they reached up to anti tank fronts and destroyed enemy atry positions! With their high rate of fire, they could out-fight any enemy tank on the battlefield. Although few in number the Tigers performed outstanding in both the offensive and deffensive roles... Constantly under a hail of fire from anti tank guns and rocket launchers, the Tigers DID NOT get off unscaled. However; thanks to their strong frontal armor, they were indeed difficult to knock out.. often enemy shells fired by enemy tanks simply bounced off their frontal armor... Nevertheless, the Tiger was not invulnerable! And loses always kept pace with the slow trickle of new machines arriving at the front from the hard pressed German factories."

I think that's exactly what makes the Tiger having lots of reputation indeed as it's definitely not just a myth.. which is something u can't so simply deny... The so called "good guys" said it themselves already!

JimQwilleran wrote:[quote="Kasbah"I don't mean they were bad tanks themselves, of course that they scored many kills with guns able to kill T-34 from hundreds meters. What I mean that they were bad in long-term thinking. With their resources and ideas, Germans could design much better, lighter and cheaper tanks, that could have been deployed in bigger numbers.

1) Later Panthers (and also Tigers) were rather reliable... between a tad less to even better than the Pz IVs2) "lighter" tanks... saving weight on what? Using only L48s whcih would have had trouble as soon as an enemy decides to protect against the Kwk 36? Or Armour, which would've reduced the survivability of the tank in combat3) "deployed in bigger numbers"... you mean actual deployement OR Produced? if the later... at the end of the war they had more AFVs (StuGs and Panzers) than tank crews... the man power was a far bigger problem than the amount of produced tanks for them...

Last edited by Der Major on 10 Apr 2016, 13:43, edited 1 time in total.

XAHTEP39 wrote:Der Major, it is Interesting, what are the disadvantages were late German tanks (Pz. IV - V - VIE - VIB) ?

well lack of spare parts, lack of fuel... green and not overly well trained tank crews (later on most of the teachers were send to the Front with the Panzer Lehr Division), difficult to repair, break downs because lack of Maintance and some problems that weren't solved because of the war (Panthers final drive, while improved, still was a problem)... overall the state of the war... VI B of course the overall weight too...

Panzer IVs problem? It was hopelessley outdated... that's why they wanted the Panther to replace the Panzer IVs

XAHTEP39 wrote:Der Major, it is Interesting, what are the disadvantages were late German tanks (Pz. IV - V - VIE - VIB) ?

I can add.

Crews : a handfull of aces in a sea of untrained rookies. Panzers situation during last year of the war is very comparable to Luftwaffe situation. The reich was unable to train new crews. the reason in two words. NO OIL. It s useless to give a powerfull tank to an inept crews.

You ve plently of reasons aside that. lack of raw, lack of skilled workers, enlisted in the army at autumn 44, and replaced by slave workers, german logistic weakness are some.

@Der MajorOk, my bad, I used far too much mental shortcuts and poor designations. And yes, you are right and pointed them out very well.

Der Major wrote:1) "steal enemie's designs --> Panther <---"... thank you you just now disqualified yourself about any qualified talk about WWII "it has Sloped armor must be copy of soviets"... Sloped armour was used much longer... Maximilian armour had parts on it to keep arrows from hitting perfectly... fortresses had angled walls... ships had angled armour... oh and... Tanks already had sloped armour before T-34s... ever seen a Char b1? Oh yeah... german halftracks and armoured cars also applied sloped armour far before meeting the T-34... Daimler Benz btw actually proposed a tank that looked like copy of a T-34... was rejected...

Now you overextended my words. I never said that "T-34 was the first thing ever made to be slopped". Yes, as you nicely pointed there were many thoughtful examples of slopes used to reflect enemy projectiles throughout the ages. What I meant is just a fact that: "before T-34 in German service there was not a tank that looked like it, and then after observing that design, it was adapted by Germans." I admit it was my fault, I didn't state it precisely.

Der Major wrote:1) 75mm High velocity gun mainly for AT duty, while T-34 has more of a multi purpose gun2) Gasoline instead of diesel3) turret basket and 3 man turret (T-34 didnt have one until after the Panthers appearance iirc)4) far broader layout to give the crew space to work with...5) no commander doubling as a loader...6) extremely soft Torsion bar suspension giving the crew a smooth ride (actually afaik on Today MBT level) VS hard Christie suspension that made traveling off road rather... unpleasend in the T-347) transmission that allowed neutral steer as well as an easy steering using a steering wheel VS T-34s clutch break Transmission where they had to use a hammer to get into the highest gear until a new gearbox was brought in when they rolled out T-34-85s (but only later ones afaik)

Yes, I will repeat. You are also right about this one, but I didn't mean that Germans found abandoned T-34, disassembled it and copied every single detail including every single screw (like they did with one of american planes that had an emergency landing in USSR). I already stated, that German tanks were superior in terms of quality and especially crew training, and you also gave us here many points that I had no idea about.

Der Major wrote:2) on a cost per ton ratio the Tiger was nearly as expensive as a Panzer IV, Panther was actually only a tad more expensive then Panzer IVs... (iirc 104k for Panzer IV, 114 or so for Panzer V)

I tried now to find some sources that agree or disagree with this statement, but I found nothing reliable. Please can you give me your source? (Not because I don't believe, just want to read it myself )

Yes, again, my fault. Of course, at the same time Germans also worked on faster models of tanks. What I said was just more focused on vehicles like jagdtiger, tiger II, maus etc.

Der Major wrote:Tigers 40... like Panzer IVs... and the Tiger and the Panther were far better cross coutnry...

Yes, again true, but don't forget that those high speeds were only possible on good roads. And yes, they had better cross-country abilities due to wider tracks. Sherman's and T-34's tracks were even not that wide as in Pz IV, if I am not mistaken.

Der Major wrote:the Sherman also wasnt cheap by any means... dito T-34... the respective nations just were able to built so many of them that they APPEAR to be cheap...

Again, I didn't say that. I didn't say Sherman was cheap. I even gave you the numbers in that post.I said that Sherman was far much easier and quicker to produce.

Thank you for your posts, because you pointed many flaws of mine .

Tiger1996 wrote:Tiger having lots of reputation indeed as it's definitely not just a myth.. which is something u can't so simply deny... The so called "good guys" said it themselves already!

Tiger1996 wrote:Here is an English documentary that was made after Micheal Wittmann as a tribute;

XAHTEP39 wrote:Der Major, it is Interesting, what are the disadvantages were late German tanks (Pz. IV - V - VIE - VIB) ?

well lack of spare parts, lack of fuel... green and not overly well trained tank crews (later on most of the teachers were send to the Front with the Panzer Lehr Division), difficult to repair, break downs because lack of Maintance and some problems that weren't solved because of the war (Panthers final drive, while improved, still was a problem)... overall the state of the war... VI B of course the overall weight too...

Panzer IVs problem? It was hopelessley outdated... that's why they wanted the Panther to replace the Panzer IVs

some other stuff to add i missed: German War industry wasnt geared towards (total) war until 1943 or so... that's why we have a steady increase in produced tanks til the end of 44... they even continued to produce civil goods on nearly pre war levels durin the war before they geared up... and of course the lack of resources

JimQwilleran wrote:@Der Major

Der Major wrote:2) on a cost per ton ratio the Tiger was nearly as expensive as a Panzer IV, Panther was actually only a tad more expensive then Panzer IVs... (iirc 104k for Panzer IV, 114 or so for Panzer V)

I tried now to find some sources that agree or disagree with this statement, but I found nothing reliable. Please can you give me your source? (Not because I don't believe, just want to read it myself )

Yes, again, my fault. Of course, at the same time Germans also worked on faster models of tanks. What I said was just more focused on vehicles like jagdtiger, tiger II, maus etc.

Der Major wrote:Tigers 40... like Panzer IVs... and the Tiger and the Panther were far better cross coutnry...

Yes, again true, but don't forget that those high speeds were only possible on good roads. And yes, they had better cross-country abilities due to wider tracks. Sherman's and T-34's tracks were even not that wide as in Pz IV, if I am not mistaken.

Der Major wrote:the Sherman also wasnt cheap by any means... dito T-34... the respective nations just were able to built so many of them that they APPEAR to be cheap...

Again, I didn't say that. I didn't say Sherman was cheap. I even gave you the numbers in that post.I said that Sherman was far much easier and quicker to produce.

Point 2)Well the Maus actually isnt that slow... 20 km/h for a 188 ton vehicle, with 200mm UFP, 236mm Turret face and 250mm Gun mantlet all made out of Wotan n/a new type... Churchills and the T95 were slower while weighting less than half the weight... also Tiger II still made 38 km/h and the JT iirc too... so they were still around the average (problems were the overloaded transmissions etc). Also: Maus was actually quite reliable... they tested it for over a year without any breakdowns (breakdown than occured when the thing was send into combat...)Point 3)T-34 had wider tracks than Panzer IV

Point 4)That also depends: the US would've most likely be able to churn out a Panther Tank in equivalents rivaling the M4 while the germans wouldn't have been able to chrun out mcuh more M4s than they did with Panthers because they didnt have the industial capacities to do it

oh and

"before T-34 in German service there was not a tank that looked like it,

the only simiiliarities in LOOK between T-34 and Panther IS Sloped armour... the Panther has a vastly different profile from the T-34

Panther is a exception. One of the rare german panzer to reach the 15 hp/tons.

tbf early shermans also were lower than 15 hp/tons, Tiger I had the same p/w ratio as the IS-2... and dont let me start about the m26 Pershing

typical 44/45 Sherman engine was the ford GAA, around 500 hp. typical Sherman weight was 30 to 33 tons. It make Sherman on the 15 hp/ton, that is usually considered as the minimum ratio to reach for a good panzer.

You ve of course various engine on Shermans, for exemple twin diesel, or plane gasoline radial engine. That s why the M4 is so high, to be able to host various kind of engines. some were less powerfull than the GAA, something 420 or 460 hp, but overall you were rather close to the target ratio.

Ps : I tend to focus on late Sherman, simply because coh take place from june 44 to may 45. Early Sherman could have less good ratio, but it s wasnt the greastest problem they had. Ealier version were unsafe, and tended to quickly detonate in case of direct hit ... Like PIV. This prb was solved later, but reputation not, even today.